Indeed the relatively new field of Persuasive Technology explicitly aims to develop technological artifacts that persuade humans to perform in ‘desirable’ ways (IJsselsteijn et al. 2006)

From : InTheMindway@WikiWorld

---

This is most beautiful. please give us some links if there are any. You are most welcomed. -- JimScarver

---

And what about Truth. does anybody care about Truth? We do not know what we think we know because Truth is not absolute and it is not arbitrary. -- JimScarver

---

Note: I may move the below information to a new page, but for right now....
You Asked, The Answer Is...

I do care about truth. But as you say truth is not absolute. Not so fast, I will explain. But I wholeheartily agree truth is not arbitrary.

My truth, your truth, universal truth, all can have infinite facets of TheGoodLife. Holding virtue for certain self truths or group mind truths is not an absolute moral truth. What I mean here is can we have an absolute moral truth anyway? The allaboutphilosophy : Moral Truth article [2] suggests there are many problematic situations placed upon "Moral Truth" and as such the article gives the conclusion suggestion that Moral Truth cannot be absolute.

Moral Truth – Why Does It Matter?
When self-interest rules, it has a profound impact on behavior, especially how we treat other human beings. The notion of human dignity depends on there being objective moral truths. Instead, we can discard people when they become troublesome or expensive.

With moral relativism, anything goes! The death of objective morality is filled with an “anything goes” mentality. Nothing is ultimately wrong if you can get away with it.

I will directly provide a displacement view of analyst considerations to these two quotes:

"Instead, we can discard people when they become troublesome or expensive."
"Nothing is ultimately wrong if you can get away with it."

Under a memetically active system that I conceptually hold by memespace by domainnames, I profoundly disagree with this article's stance and there is something of "cultural Change" that can be placed into the record especially if there is a conflict that has arisen from one person's [or group] actions that is of self-interest which actually has or will harm others or strip away our given universal human rights including our human dignity.

Let me offer the name of what I conceptually hold as possible displacement here:
"Applied Memetic Engineering Systems : a morality correctiveness model"
goal of positive memetic engineering that I call to action as...

"Great Reasons Urbans Will Unite Peace"
vs.
"Massive Mischievous Marvel Of Molding Muck"

Using the memespace by domain @realuphuman.net : @gruwup.net : @muckeduphuman.net : @fuckeduphuman.net frankly just cannot be discarded and will demand the attention of the offender. The key phrase "get away with it" really cannot hold true anymore.

The purpose for bringing a situation and labeling it is for "computer aided conflict resolution" where as outside of court but within this memespace to remove what is most FU about something and settle it Real Up Human and Gruw Up. This can be established first most private communications with the element of possible publicly visible real negotiations will be very apparent motivators.

Verizon Already Uses phone Numbers at their Domain

Think of a small application that when a phone receives
a call from a particular number, the application can check
the memespace for @realuphuman.net : @gruwup.net : @fuckeduphuman.net
and return a "trust" valuation instantly? As long as what is posted
of information there is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH to the circumstances involved,
no defamation or liable suit could be pursued. No one would want to
create the paradox of placing a false story to the record when if such
story could be then disproved, their identity would be immediately placed
to the wrong side character and reputation.

It should hold its own MORAL TRUTH Soundly. Having great responsibilities
for these domains has to be properly coded.

The coding of my domain mememspaces has to be full features to address the concern that is written in the wikipedia article Meme [3]

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca M.D., a critic of memetics, calls the theory a "pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of consciousness and cultural evolution". As a factual criticism, Benitez-Bribiesca points to the lack of a "code script" for memes (analogous to the DNA of genes), and to the excessive instability of the meme mutation mechanism (that of an idea going from one brain to another), which would lead to a low replication accuracy and a high mutation rate, rendering the evolutionary process chaotic.

I envision that Moral Truth can be absolute along with all universal truths, group mind truths, down to your truth and my truth with the proper inclusion of "code script" as mentioned.

Memespace[4]
The memespace is an abstract cultural container populated by memes.

Memes are similar to genes and viruses in that they tend to propagate, evolve, corrupt and mutate. All these actions take place in the memespace. As a direct result, the memespace is considered volatile and prone to errors and corruption without rigorous error correction.


The rigorous error correction is the exact presence on the web, the user interface to initiate a user to user communications and to define the parameters and acceptable outcomes and non-acceptable outcomes PRIVATELY FIRST and then possible PUBLIC should no agreement be reached. Should be a simple idea --- then I would like the ability for partner websites to interface with data held in mememspace.

There is always the ability to CORRECT THE RECORD on any data across all pages on the internet. What our our shared responsibilities given to us? FOR THE RECORD....

Special Regards: A two fold book titled combined quote which both books can be found at Google Books. Google Book Search: [ "Go Fix Some Weighty Truth" [5]]

- There are very many book title matches, ( Current Result Aug 5th 2012 About 483 Google book results (0.27 seconds) ) this is a very important true fact and not a joke. These words written a while ago should be something that guides us all, but has been lost in our world of modern society morals. I now begin with just two of the book sources which contain various versions of these same sourced words.

[*] : Much instruction from little reading: or, extracts from some of the most approved authors ancient and modern [6][ various authors, specific pages 37/38 ]

[*] : History of the Counties of McKean, Elk, Cameron and Potter, Pennsylvania [ J.H. Beers & Co [7]: Preface ]

The Combined Quotation Is:

Art thou dejected?
Is thy mind o'ercast?
Amid her fair ones, thou the fairest choose,
To Chase Thy Gloom -
"Go Fix Some Weighty Truth;
Chain down some passion;
Do some generous good;
Teach ignorance to see,
or grief to smile;
Correct thy friend,
befriend thy greatest foe;
Be just in all things;
Make amends for follies past,
and with warm heart forgive and be forgiven;
Let work not words thy virtue prove;
Go act as well as prate,
and then thy counsels will be strong.

Thy Reprimands Avail.

THE province of the historian is to gather the threads of the past ere they I elude forever his grasp, and weave them into a harmonious web to which the "art preservative" may give immortality. Therefore he, who would rescue from fast-gathering oblivion the deeds of a community, and send them on to futurity in an imperishable record, should deliver a plain, unvarnished tale.

1.3 Free to act

The freedom to act is probably the most important condition for attributing moral responsibility and also one of the most contested. We tend to excuse people from moral blame if they had no other choice but to act in the way that they did. We typically do not hold people responsible if they were coerced or forced to take particular actions. The freedom to act can also mean that a person has free will or autonomy (Fisher 1999). Someone can be held morally responsible because she acts on the basis of her own authentic thoughts and motivations and has the capacity to control her behavior (Johnson 2001).

Nevertheless, there is little consensus on what capacities human beings have, that other entities do not have, which enables them to act freely (see the entries on free will, autonomy in moral and political philosophy, personal autonomy and compatibilism). Does it require rationality, emotion, intentionality or cognition? Indeed, one important debate in moral philosophy centers on the question of whether human beings really have autonomy or free will? And, if not, can moral responsibility still be attributed (Eshleman 2009)?

In practice, attributing autonomy or free will to humans on the basis of the fulfillment of a set of conditions turns out to be a less than straightforward endeavor. We attribute autonomy to persons in degrees. An adult is generally considered to be more autonomous than a child. As individuals in a society our autonomy is thought to vary because we are manipulated, controlled or influenced by forces outside of ourselves, such as by our parents or through peer pressure. Moreover, internal physical or psychological influences, such as addictions or mental problems, are perceived as further constraining the autonomy of a person.

Computing, like other technologies, adds an additional layer of complexity to determining whether someone is free to act, as it affects the choices that humans have and how they make them. One of the biggest application areas of computing is the automation of decision-making processes and control. Automation can help to centralize and increase control over multiple processes for those in charge, while it limits the discretionary power of human operators on the lower-end of the decision-making chain. An example is provided by the automation of decision-making in public administration (Bovens and Zouridis 2002). Large public sector organizations have over the last few decades progressively standardized and formalized their production processes. The process of issuing decisions about student loans, speeding tickets or tax returns is carried out almost entirely by computer systems. This has reduced the scope of the administrative discretion that many officials, such as tax inspectors, welfare workers, and policy officers, have in deciding how to apply formal policy rules in individual cases. Citizens no longer interact with officials that have significant responsibility in applying their knowledge of the rules and regulations to decide what is appropriate (e.g., would it be better to let someone off with a warning or is a speeding ticket required?). Rather, decisions are pre-programmed in the algorithms that apply the same measures and rules regardless of the person or the context (e.g., a speeding camera does not care about the context). Responsibility for decisions made, in these cases, has moved from ‘street-level bureaucrats’ to the ‘system-level bureaucrats’, such as managers and computer experts, that decide on how to convert policy and legal frameworks into algorithms and decision-trees.

The automation of bureaucratic processes illustrates that some computer technologies are intentionally designed to limit the discretion of some human beings. Indeed the relatively new field of Persuasive Technology explicitly aims to develop technological artifacts that persuade humans to perform in ‘desirable’ ways (IJsselsteijn et al. 2006). An example is the anti-alcohol lock that is already in use in a number of countries, including the USA, Canada, Sweden and the UK. It requires the driver to pass a breathing test before she can start the car. This technology forces a particular kind of action and leaves the driver with hardly any choice. Other technologies might have a more subtle way of steering behavior, by either persuading or seducing users (Verbeek 2006). For example, the onboard computer devices in some cars that show, in real-time, information about fuel consumption can encourage the driver to optimize fuel efficiency. Such technologies are designed with the explicit aim of making humans behave responsibly by limiting their options or persuading them to choose in a certain way.

Verbeek notes that critics of the idea of intentionally developing technology to enforce morally desirable behavior have argued that it jettisons the democratic principles of our society and threatens human dignity. They argue that it deprives humans of their ability and rights to make deliberate decisions and to act voluntarily. In addition, critics have claimed that if humans are not acting freely, their actions cannot be considered moral. These objections can be countered, as Verbeek argues, by pointing to the rules, norms, regulations and a host of technological artifacts that already set conditions for actions that humans are able or allowed to perform. Moreover, he notes, technological artifacts, as active mediators, affect the actions and experiences of humans, but they do not determine them. Some people have creatively circumvented the strict morality of the alcohol lock by having an air pump in the car (Vidal 2004). Nevertheless, these critiques underline the issues at stake in automating decision-making processes: computing can set constraints on the freedom a person has to act and thus affects the extent to which she can be held morally responsible.

The challenges that computer technologies present with regard to the conditions for ascribing responsibility indicate the limitations of conventional ethical frameworks in dealing with the question of moral responsibility. Traditional models of moral responsibility seem to be developed for the kinds of actions performed by an individual that have directly visible consequences (Waelbers 2009). However, in today's society attributions of responsibility to an individual or a group of individuals are intertwined with the artifacts with which they interact as well as with intentions and actions of other human agents that these artifacts mediate. Acting with computer technologies may require a different kind of analysis of who can be held responsible and what it means to be morally responsible.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Real Up Human [.net] <realuphuman.net@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr Noorman,

This is the very first opportunity that I have had to notate for the public record the use of your .edu resource in a video presentation.

Your Article:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-responsibility/

My Use on my Internet Domain Set @gruwup.net

http://community.gruwup.net

@GruwUp Community Peace building : rev 2.0

@GRUWUP.NET <gruwup.net@gmail.com>

1:52 AM (0 minutes ago)

to community

@Gruwup : #Community #Peacebuilding

Great Reasons Us [ You There, I Here, and Everyone Around ] Will Unite Peace

Here are some introduction topic folders --- All of these have both WRITTEN and SPOKEN VOICE TEXT NARRATIVE audio immediately delivered as a CLICK and LISTEN presentation.  Any Questions about the contents of this page can be directed to: [ community@gruwup.net ]. Thank you

----> Purposefully misspelled on page to prevent spam data mining

]  corrected here.

 Prejudice/              04-Jun-2016 13:20    -  

 Quality-Over-Quantity/  04-Jun-2016 13:34    -

 Words-To-Live-By/       04-Jun-2016 13:39    - 

 Computing-and-Moral-..> 04-Jun-2016 13:28     


===========

In YouTube Video:
CONFIRM the understandings that are needed here. You must reply please.

https://youtu.be/VcBWg9qIAgU?t=28m57s

https://youtu.be/VcBWg9qIAgU?t=31m17s

https://youtu.be/VcBWg9qIAgU?t=32m12s

This YouTube is Item#2 of a Full Address YouTube PlayList:
Conspiracy of Hate Harassment Chaos 11 Months In The Making Exposed : CONFIRM the understandings that are needed here. You must reply please.
https://youtu.be/EJaTxdq_jj4?list=PLDJPWQTSrW0HPXaA9YnCem_v09YBvijE8

1.1 Causal contribution

In order for a person to be held morally responsible for a particular event, she has to be able to exert some kind of influence on that event. It does not make sense to blame someone for an accident if she could not have avoided it by acting differently or if she had no control over the events leading up to the accident.

1.2 Considering the consequences

As computer technologies shape how people perceive and experience the world, they affect the second condition for attributing moral responsibility. In order to make appropriate decisions a person has to be able to consider and deliberate about the consequences of her actions. She has be aware of the possible risks or harms that her actions might cause. It is unfair to hold someone responsible for something if they could not have known that their actions might lead to harm.

 Abusive Realtionship..> 21-Nov-2016 00:32  1.3M  
 Abusive Realtionship..> 21-Nov-2016 00:32  1.3M 

 Jay _ bbrt [ Blkboy4..> 20-Nov-2016 22:27  3.4M  



 Gmail - POST on Dr. ..> 21-Nov-2016 00:19  169K  

Dr Laura
1 hr · 
YOU decide what you will and won't tolerate in your life. You have the right to say no.
LikeShow more reactionsComment
Share
Top Comments
2.2K 2.2K
657 shares
Comments
Write a comment...

J Martin Driskill Dr Laura -- you have my introduction - My name is James
 Martin Driskill - I live in Denver Colorado in HIV/AIDS HOPWA HUD Subsided
 housing... There has been an on going hate harassment and personal hate 
agenda targeted against me --- for the calling of individuals out from this
 community into involvements into my personal life space that at the time
 appeared to not be holding respectful considerations for any kind of attempt
 at placing boundaries into my life space here --- time and time -- new 
person after new person after new person would be called into connecting 
and involving themselves into my life and personal space here which ended 
in chaos after chaos after chaos time and time again. - I could not indeed 
control these people to place any at all boundaries to which I DECLARED both 
in verbal form in directive assertions and in writing after they done their, 
behaviors, attitudes, and anti-social normal actions within my life. Actually,
 the video presentation that best opens this up to public world view -- has 
a very distributing event that was captured onto video recording and posted
 here on Facebook to the activities of Mawuna Harris back in May. There is a
 bicycle left over here in my space as an abandoned property object from these 
events. The original owner was brought over here to my apartment by Mr Harris 
directly. To the events that now places this bicycle as abandoned property in 
my care for these many months -- just in October --- I had an encounter with 
another direct inter-building resident tenant who subverts himself to the 
claim that this bicycle now is his property given to him by it's owner -- a
 discussion conversation that occurs outside of my personal knowing ---- and 
that this bicycle now has been claimed to his and not mine. THIS BEING the 
CASE -- this makes this bicycle object of abandoned property from May - an 
object of proving case -- by the preponderance of the evidence level 
confirmed that the originating source point of this on going harassment and 
hate campaign set up against me was truly not of independent community 
members from outside creating these disturbances into my space of apartment 
112 in this building but indeed the source of these actors of conspirators 
were called into action against me from within this very own building -- 
just outside of my own apartment itself. Some other person here in this 
building is of moral responsibility and moral accountability fore this. 
Not ME. I have indeed DETAIL AFTER DETAIL after DETAIL documented and 
recorded these involvements into this space that has been going on for 
months and months and months with basically no stoppage until just 
notable recently. No one wants to SPEAK -- every one wants to call me 
to NOT COMMUNICATE AT ALL. in it. A CONSPIRACY has been EXPOSED -- and 
no one wants to OWN UP to their RESPONSIBILITIES to the CAUSE of ACTIONS 
of THE TRUTH. I really need an outside counsel of LEADERSHIP and POWERS 
PRESSURES to BRING FORWARD RESOLUTION apart from OPPRESSION to which 
their resounding scope of focus is some kind of CASE COMPLAINT to set 
forth into EVICTION. I gave you a full and complete truthful introduction 
to whom I am --- all facts not deceptions. They cannot be here completely 
silent -- because indeed I can in fact use Facebook tagging -- and I CHOOSE 
that TAGGING BINDING to their BS HATE HIDDEN AGENDA.
 Dr Laura : Chesney-Kleinjohn Housing Inc : Rocky Mountain CARES 
: Denver Colorado AIDS Project : UCHealth - University of Colorado Hospital 
: AIDS Healthcare Foundation : Peak Wellness Center : 

Also in line of public celebrity here is
 Metta World Peace : Magic Johnson Foundation : Rachel Maddow 
: The Rachel Maddow Show : Barack Obama : President Obama 
: Pontifex : This post is very very much real. 
: Youtube Video Playlist : https://www.youtube.com/playlist...

 : CONFIRM the understandings that are needed here. You must reply please.

 : As an USA Citizen, ability to live truly free pursuits of happiness 
elusive - exposed conspiracy -- This is a very long video play list 
address. -
Like · Reply · 2 mins
J Martin Driskill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBWg9qIAgU...
Like · Reply · 1 min
J Martin Driskill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBWg9qIAgU&index=1...
CONFIRM the understandings that are…
youtube.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 min
J Martin Driskill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJaTxdq_jj4&index=2...
As an USA Citizen, ability to live truly free pursuits…
youtube.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · Just now
J Martin Driskill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cvXr9zYzEM&t=95s
Address to open minds / public world wide from…
youtube.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · Just now
J Martin Driskill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8L5P-B040&t=421s

...

[Message clipped]